Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > General Political Chat > Political Opinions & Beliefs


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2008, 12:48 PM
JEQuidam's Avatar
JEQuidam JEQuidam is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6
usa
JEQuidam is on a distinguished road
Credits: 111
Default A "People's House" or an oligarchy? (U.S.A.)

Many people do not realize that our total number of Representatives to the U.S. House has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437).

In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated:
"I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."

The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?

Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become "broken" and, in any case, violates the principle "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (from the Declaration of Independence).

Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, "Article the first" was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx
__________________
It was supposed to be our House.
Thirty-Thousand.org
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
House Panel Sues White House Officials f0ca1 Current Events 6 03-10-2008 08:05 PM
House panel subpoenas White House aides exigent United States 17 03-22-2007 09:36 AM
'People's vodka' urged for Russia .Volkes-Vodka f100supersabr Current Events 11 12-01-2006 08:41 PM
The People's Court? audiowizard Law & Justice 1 03-08-2005 12:45 PM
The People's Awards JP5 Media & Commentators 5 01-11-2005 07:18 AM

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden